Incredulity. Overall, approximately two out of three blacks (63 percent) exceed their parents’ income after the data are adjusted for inflation, similar to the percentage for whites. https://www.brookings.edu/research/economic-mobility-of-black-and-white-families/
Where did I claim anything because it hadn't been proven false? Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Been homeless. Recovered. No safety net. Who gets evicted for break-ins? "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event" generally violates Occam's Razor. Oh, I see. You're an ideologue. Both Detroit and Flint have long been controlled by Democrats. What town do you live in? The definition of the null hypothesis denies all causative relationships, so denying assumptions of an argument is a given. Where did anyone fail to acknowledge correlation? You don't seem to know what "vice versa" ("with the main items in the preceding statement the other way around") means. Poor whites are less vulnerable to bad luck? Yep, "still", because I do acknowledge past racism. And by "even if it didn't" I assume you have nothing. You're right, you only agreed that they do. Why do you think they do? So the beliefs of blacks are irrelevant? Don't tell them that. Largely because of harmful culture.
Ah. In that case, sorry I exposed your strawman. You're a funny guy! "I think this means X." "No, it means Y." "You said it means X!" "No, you said that. I said it means Y." "Well, uh . . . Y is a meaningless tautology." Thank you for admitting that forces outside your control can shape the course of your life, and result in a limitation of your choices. In 1973 it happened at a Trump housing project. In 1998 a jury found Big D Enterprises, Inc. and its owner, Edwin Dooley, had discriminated against prospective African American tenants at three Fort Smith, Arkansas apartment complexes. In 1999 a federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. In 2005 a lawsuit was settled; the claim was "owners and managers of the Foster Apartments either turned away black testers or steered them to an apartment building in a black neighborhood while encouraging whites to rent their other properties." They settled for $100,000 and a promise not to do it any more. In 2006 a lawsuit was settled. Bob Peterson "violated the Fair Housing Act when he discriminated against black tenants at two apartment complexes which he owns and manages" in Minnesota. Settlement was $525,000 and a requirement to follow nondiscrimination requirements. In 2013 HUD released a report showing how real estate agents avoid showing minorities houses in "white" areas. White potential buyers were shown houses in such areas more often than black potential buyers. In 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that several other housing discrimination cases could proceed. In the decision - "these unlawful practices include zoning laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any sufficient justification." Most of the above come from here: https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-cases-summary-page That might work. So you'd have to wait 30 years for your home, and perhaps get it after your kids moved away from home. Because others limited your choices. ?? Right. There are people who succeed no matter what. There are people who fail no matter what. The vast majority succeed or fail based on many factors. One of those factors is racism.
From the same link: ------------------------ However, a majority of blacks born to middle-income parents grow up to have less income than their parents. Only 31 percent of black children born to parents in the middle of the income distribution have family income greater than their parents, compared to 68 percent of white children from the same income bracket. Odds of exceeding parental incomes are better for black children from other income groups, but are still substantially lower than those of white children in the same circumstances.2 White children are more likely to move up the ladder while black children are more likely to fall down. More than one third (37 percent) of white children born to parents in the middle income group move up to the fourth or fifth quintile, compared to only 17 percent of black children whose parents have approximately the same levels of income. Startlingly, almost half (45 percent) of black children whose parents were solidly middle class end up falling to the bottom of the income distribution, compared to only 16 percent of white children. Achieving middle-income status does not appear to protect black children from future economic adversity the same way it protects white children. Black children from poor families have poorer prospects than white children from such families. More than half (54 percent) of black children born to parents in the bottom quintile stay in the bottom, compared to 31 percent of white children.
And so we can see easily where your posting goes haywire. Since I was pointing centrally and crucially to the overt influence of a large fraction of American society - no particular organization involved, just the mutual cooperation of white racial bigots - your comments have badly missed the entire issue at hand. White racial bigots have controlled their boundary suburbs and State oversight - that's how they became and remain segregated and dysfunctional, unable (for example) to expand their tax base to catch up with the wealth taken away by white flight. Many of these controlling officials have been Republican - including some of the ones whose racist presumptions wrecked the Detroit schools and recently lead poisoned the child population of Flint, causing permanent brain damage in hundreds and possibly thousands of primarily black children. Disproportionate lead and other neurotoxin exposure in black children is among the effects of white racism in the US. Black people with absentee white landlords, sometimes. You didn't know that? On average, yes. They have more wealth than poor blacks, for starters, and are more often connected to family with wealth. They are not subject to racial discrimination by the rich and powerful of their communities, either. So it's easier for them to recover, on average. - - - That's just stupid. You've been corrected what, five times now, including specifically with a thread example. As noted above, you have a lot of trouble with basic logic.
Your straw man. Still your straw man. Very few people of any race just waltz into success right away. Success usually takes work and time. So individual racists (which I don't see anyone arguing don't exist) penalized by the supposedly racist institutions? A narrative of racially discriminatory landlords and bankers—all independent actors—has long served as an explanation for the isolation of African-Americans in certain neighborhoods in large cities. But this pervasive assumption rationalizing residential segregation in the United States ignores the long history of federal, state and local policies that generated the residential segregation found across the country today. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...acially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/ Or wait to have children, and with enough down, anyone can get a loan. A delay having kids would allow much faster savings over 15 years. Many who succeed despite racism. Yep, bad cultural influence. Well, since black families did better post-slavery and post-Jim Crow than today, it can't really be overt racism. It could be bad incentives and excuses for bad behavior/decisions.
You really think conspiracy theories require organizations? Okay. Flint: While local elected officials in Flint were subservient to Snyder’s emergency managers, those local officials concurred with the initial decisions to switch away from the old water source and to use the Flint River as an interim source. "Flint leaders enthusiastically endorsed joining the new regional (pipeline project) scheduled to come online later in 2016," Michigan Truth Squad, a fact-checking organization, concluded. "And though they did not make the decision to use the Flint River until (the pipeline) was ready, Flint leaders enthusiastically endorsed the Flint River decision – and toasted it the day of the water switch. … Two months after the Flint River switch, Flint Mayor Dayne Walling declared to MLive.com that ‘it’s a quality, safe product. … I think people are wasting their precious money buying bottled water.’ " Local offices in Flint are officially nonpartisan, but Walling was a Democrat. So too was Andy Dillon, the state treasurer who signed off on the water changes (and who was a cross-party appointee of Snyder). Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency -- during the administration of President Barack Obama -- has come in for criticism as well. A July 2015 email by a regional EPA administrator apologized for the warnings by the EPA’s own employee, Del Toral, and called them an "unvetted draft." Despite senior EPA officials’ delays in taking Del Toral’s warnings seriously, they were ultimately determined to have been accurate. Several experts added that the problems in Flint cannot be divorced from the city’s long-term economic decline. And as long ago as 2010, the EPA expressed concern that "dramatic budget cuts" at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality were having a "significant impact" on its water program. The governor at the time? Democrat Jennifer Granholm. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/15/whos-blame-flint-water-crisis/Detroit and others: A narrative of racially discriminatory landlords and bankers—all independent actors—has long served as an explanation for the isolation of African-Americans in certain neighborhoods in large cities. But this pervasive assumption rationalizing residential segregation in the United States ignores the long history of federal, state and local policies that generated the residential segregation found across the country today. ... From the first segregated public housing projects of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, to the 1949 Housing Act that encouraged white movement to the suburbs, to unconstitutional racial zoning ordinances enacted by city governments, Rothstein substantiates the argument that the current state of the American city is the direct result of unconstitutional, state-sanctioned racial discrimination. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...acially-segregated-american-cities-180963494/ But amidst the good times, the seeds of Detroit’s future disintegration were being sown. In some cases this occurred in very obvious ways that everyone could plainly see, most notably a rising militancy among local community organizers angered by what they perceived to be the slow pace of civil-rights reforms. Rev. Albert Cleague and other Detroit-area activists openly called for black separatism and self-determination, on the premise that whites would never voluntarily choose to share political power with blacks. At a July 1967 Black Power rally in Detroit, the radical H. Rap Brown gave voice to the city's growing unrest when he warned that if “Motown” did not make sufficient reforms, “we are going to burn you down.” In other ways, the seeds of Detroit's eventual decline germinated quietly, scarcely noticed, and with implications that few could appreciate at the time. Most significantly, in 1961 the reins of political power in the city fell permanently into Democratic Party hands. In the 53 years that have passed since then, Detroit has not had a single Republican mayor. Indeed it has elected only one Republican to its City Council since 1970. As it has become a political monoculture, it has also become a failed city. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1880 That's much more the case of justified breaking of leases than evictions. You'd have to show otherwise. No, poor whites don't magically have "more wealth" than poor blacks. No, you've just misunderstood null hypothesis, what, five times now. At this point, I don't think you can be educated, which is why I told you to ask your friends. maybe they will have more patience with you.
Yes it does. And the degree of success depends on many things, including whether you have to deal with racism. Try talking with any black person who tried to go to school and get a job in the 1960's and see if they believe that racism had nothing to do with their ability to be successful. We have gotten much better since then - but we're not there 100% yet. Yes. And of course for every one that gets prosecuted, ten are clever enough to get away with it. Yes. So your solution here is "black people should wait 15 years to have kids so they can better deal with racism?" Interesting. I'd rather just solve the racism problem. Exactly. No matter how much you tilt the playing field, some exceptional people will climb to the top. That is a piss-poor argument to not try to level the playing field.
Are we still in the 60s? Do you have stats on that? No, just make better decisions, regardless of racism. So you think only exceptional black people succeed? Or only exceptional black people from ghettos? Look it up the black single-parenthood (highest predictor of generational poverty) of those eras yourself. Since you believe facts coming from the wrong source can be wrong/bad: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/jeff-sessions-anglo-american-heritage.160544/#post-3504068
Nope. I am using that example to counter your assertions that it is up to the individual how successful they are, rather than the degree and number of impediments put in their way. Like I said, ask someone black who tried to do that in the 1960's if it's always up to the individual how successful they are. Of course not. No one is going to honestly answer a poll on whether or not they have discriminated and gotten away with it. However, for crimes that are easier to spot (like drunk driving) and have less of a penalty (the cops can't bust you a year later for driving drunk, and the penalty is lower to begin with) a typical driver can get away with it 80 times before he is caught. So for something even easier to get away with, the number is going to be larger. https://www.today.com/health/some-drunken-drivers-keep-returning-road-despite-repeat-offenses-t9526 You just said that "with enough down, anyone can get a loan. A delay having kids would allow much faster savings over 15 years" as a solution to black people not being able to afford a home due to racism. (i.e. "others limited your choices.") Nope. Just that it is harder for them to succeed ON AVERAGE.
So you aren't lying, you're stupid. I'll keep it in mind. It's not magic. I pointed out some reasons it is the case - there's nothing magical about them. They are the legacy of 250 consecutive years of racial oppression by white people of black people. You, not me, required white racism to be covertly and secretively organized to exist. That was you being stupid, not me. So? Nobody here has claimed racially bigoted white bankers and landlords acted independently of each other or of racist government and racist police and racist major corporations - the exact opposite, in my case. Why are you posting these irrelevancies? So we are agreed on one aspect of the white racial bigotry and consequent extra hardship suffered by black people. Progress. Why not? Aside from the silliness of thinking today is not post Jim Crow and Jim Crow was not post slavery, how would any aspect of history imply that racism today does not have the consequences we see it having?
Ah, OK, more cherry picking. You aren't suggesting their lives were actually better. Only that one metric, which may or may not apply to previous eras, is superficially positive.
No black person can make any major decisions - good or bad - "regardless of racism" in the US. They can't even drive their cars "regardless of racism". And remember - vice versa. Above average, anyway. Or lucky. By definition, actually - look at the percentages.
Again, look up "vice versa" and see if you can figure out how that would be reverse causation. Or not. You seem pretty satisfied with your ignorance. Who am I to upset that?
No correlation "would be" causation. You have a correlation, and you are trying to argue that your correlation excludes any common cause, such as racism. That's an invalid argument, to put it kindly. This is the claim, remember: The significant factors boosting single parent percentages among black people in the US were and are - every single one of them - strongly influenced, if not simply created, by white racism. The significant factors boosting generational poverty among black people in the US were and are - every single one of them - strongly influenced, if not simply created, by white racism. And this situation is a significant aspect of the state of the onion, as incompetently and dishonestly addressed by our current government.
